The graft charges,
contained in 8 information for violation of Section 3 (e) Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) with SB-06 Criminal Case Nos. from
0457 to 0464, were filed by Ombudsman Merceditas N. Guttierrez before
the Fourth Division of Sandiganbayan in Quezon City last September 7, 2006.
Named respondents of
the cases were Governor Tan, former Provincial Treasurer Damiano Z.
Conde, Budget Officer Maximo D. Sison, Administrative Officer Rolando
B. Montejo, General Services Officer Aurelio A. Bardaje, Jr., GSO
Records Officer and Inspector Numeriano Legaspi, Provincial Accountant
Romeo C. Reales, John Does and Jane Does, all of this province.
In compliance with the
directive coming from the Sandiganbayan dated October 17, 2006 to
reinvestigate the cases, Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos
penned a 17-page resolution denying the motion for reconsideration
separately filed by the accused from September 25 to
November 7, 2006. The resolution, dated
Nov. 27, 2006, was
received by the office of Special Prosecutor on Jan. 17, 2007.
Tan, in her
manifestation, claimed that (1) there is no probable cause to indict
them; (2) the transactions are emergency purchases; (3) the
transactions are all in accordance with proper procedure; (4) there
was no conspiracy between them; and (5) before she affixed her
signature in the vouchers and supporting documents, it was examined,
evaluated and signed by the prior certifying officials.
But Kallos maintained
that there was “no cogent reason to justify or warrant the reversal of
the resolution contained in the Reviewer’s Resolution sought to be
reconsidered, there being no newly discovered evidence presented by
the accused or evidence of errors of law or irregularities that are
shown to be prejudicial to their interest.”
Meanwhile, the appeal
of accused Bardaje and Legaspi to serve as “state witnesses” and
“immunity” from any suit were granted by the Ombudsman saying “it was
through the voluntary disclosures of accused Bardaje and Legaspi of
facts, documents and circumstances which were constitutive of the
offenses complained of that the complaints against the other accused
were successfully investigated by this Office and by the Commission on
Audit (COA).”
The graft cases were
offshoots of the complaint dated October 7, 2004 by the complainant
Isog Han Samar Movement received by the Office of the Ombudsman and
was docketed as OMB-C-C-05-0049-B, for plunder.
The Ombudsman, in a
September 7 report said the transactions made by the provincial
government, pegged to a total of 16.1 million pesos were considered
“questionable and anomalous” there was no competitive bidding took
place for the purchase of various goods and that the delivery were
made before the bidding.
